You've presented a thoughtful and considerate reply, DerHasisttot. Thank you.

The most basic argument I have presented is the erosion and eventual fading out of a particular population, and this is the crux of what I would like to focus on. The premise can be applied to any element of biodiversity.

The metaphor of an endangered species of duck is still apt.

My assumption was correct in that you, as most people, would find justification for mobilizing efforts in ensuring this particular population is given a chance to exist. For whatever reason, you have deemed this species of duck worth your concern and you do not hesitate to voice your consternation. Another assumption I will make is that the same can be said of any population that contributes to the precious diversity of our world and faces existential challenges. Whether it be a rare beetle, some exotic bush or the giant panda.

I like to think a noble feature of humanity is our desire for fairness and that we should not stand by while something is endangered. We both probably share this in common.

The above considered, I plead that because a particular civilization finds itself below replacement level it is in a perilous state and merits attention. This is a conclusion that, again, assumes an overreaching, unfettered respect for diversity.

Just as you should care for a particular duck, it would not negate your concern for other types of mallards, waterfowl or any other species. Your sense of justice would be shared equally.

You must extend your own desire to protect a unique given species to the right of a nation to maintain its own identifying characteristics. Realize that the desire for prosperity and sustained existence of a nation does not by definition mandate the impingement on another.

If you can not grasp this sympathy you display for a bird and apply it to another context, you are intellectually dishonest.

On the other hand, if like GenjiKilpatrick you harbour a sense that "whites" deserve to be eradicated because of who they are... you're barely human.

Very nice. But the "do it at home" -part is ... not advisable/very expensive. These roofs have to hold a lot of additional weight, draining rainwater is a problem, wind erosion, and if you combat wind erosion, the soil gets thicker/heavier every year. But if they have worked out these problems, very good. It's probably best to plan such a field in advance when planning the buliding.

@Mazex

Well, where your claim about brainwashed people falls apart is that if Jesus was made up (which no reputed historian would claim), or His resurrection wasn't true, his disciples certainly wouldn't have martyred themselves for that lie. Being direct witnesses of the fact, you can't claim they were brainwashed. So yeah.

I posted the historical reliability of the bible because it shows its not just cooked up, as you tried to claim. It's highly intricate, and I dare say it would be actually be more miraculous for holding up so reliably if it wasnt true. 100 percent historical accuracy is pretty compelling, I think..it indicates that these are honest eye witness accounts we're dealing with.

Here are some interesting science facts that the bible fortold thousands of years before science knew anything about it..pretty good for made up isnt it?

The earth free-floats in space (Job 26:7), affected only by gravity. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.”

Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes (Hebrews 11:3). Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements.

Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea." Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors!

There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5-6). Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea

Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were “bled” and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. God declared that “the life of the flesh is in the blood” long before science understood its function.

Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin’s theory of the survival of the fittest.

The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).” No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.

The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.

Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be “parted” and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago – God declared this four millennia ago!

Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the “paths of the seas.” In the 19th century Matthew Maury – the father of oceanography – after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury’s data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.

Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, God stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars – that’s a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate.

The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course God knew this all along – “He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name” (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome God!

The fact that God once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was God’s judgment on man’s wickedness.

The continents were created as one large land mass (Genesis 1:9-10). Many geologists agree there is strong evidence that the earth was originally one super continent – just as the Bible said way back in Genesis.

Life begins at fertilization (Jeremiah 1:5). God declares that He knew us before we were born. The biblical penalty for murdering an unborn child was death (Exodus 21:22-23). Today, it is an irrefutable biological fact that the fertilized egg is truly an entire human being. Nothing will be added to the first cell except nutrition and oxygen.

God has created all mankind from one blood (Acts 17:26; Genesis 5). Today researchers have discovered that we have all descended from one gene pool. For example, a 1995 study of a section of Y chromosomes from 38 men from different ethnic groups around the world was consistent with the biblical teaching that we all come from one man (Adam)

Origin of the major language groups explained (Genesis 11). After the rebellion at Babel, God scattered the people by confounding the one language into many languages. Evolution teaches that we all evolved from a common ancestor, yet offers no mechanism to explain the origin of the thousands of diverse languages in existence today.

Origin of the different “races” explained (Genesis 11). As Noah’s descendants migrated around the world after Babel, each language group developed distinct features based on environment and genetic variation. Those with a genetic makeup suitable to their new environment survived to reproduce. Over time, certain traits (such as dark skin color for those closer to the equator) dominated. Genesis alone offers a reasonable answer to the origin of the races and languages.

Air has weight (Job 28:25). It was once thought that air was weightless. Yet 4,000 years ago Job declared that God established “a weight for the wind.” In recent years, meteorologists have calculated that the average thunderstorm holds thousands of tons of rain. To carry this load, air must have mass.

Medical quarantine instituted (Leviticus 13:45-46; Numbers 5:1-4). Long before man understood the principles of quarantine, God commanded the Israelites to isolate those with a contagious disease until cured.

Circumcision on the eighth day is ideal (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3; Luke 1:59). Medical science has discovered that the blood clotting chemical prothrombin peaks in a newborn on the eighth day. This is therefore the safest day to circumcise a baby. How did Moses know?!

Our ancestors were not primitive (Genesis 4:20-22; Job 8:8-10; 12:12). Archeologists have discovered that our ancestors mined, had metallurgical factories, created air-conditioned buildings, designed musical instruments, studied the stars, and much more. This evidence directly contradicts the theory of evolution, but agrees completely with God’s Word.

A seed must die to produce new life (1 Corinthians 15:36-38). Jesus said, “unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.” (John 12:24). In this verse is remarkable confirmation of two of the fundamental concepts in biology: 1) Cells arise only from existing cells. 2) A grain must die to produce more grain. The fallen seed is surrounded by supporting cells from the old body. These supporting cells “give their lives” to provide nourishment to the inner kernel. Once planted, this inner kernel germinates resulting in much grain

Olive oil and wine useful on wounds (Luke 10:34). Jesus told of a Samaritan man, who when he came upon a wounded traveler, he bandaged him – pouring upon his wounds olive oil and wine. Today we know that wine contains ethyl alcohol and traces of methyl alcohol. Both are good disinfectants. Olive oil is also a good disinfectant, as well as a skin moisturizer, protector, and soothing lotion. This is common knowledge to us today. However, did you know that during the Middle Ages and right up till the early 20th century, millions died because they did not know to treat and protect open wounds?

The Pleiades and Orion star clusters described (Job 38:31). The Pleiades star cluster is gravitationally bound, while the Orion star cluster is loose and disintegrating because the gravity of the cluster is not enough to bind the group together. 4,000 years ago God asked Job, "Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, or loose the belt of Orion?" Yet, it is only recently that we realized that the Pleiades is gravitationally bound, but Orion's stars are flying apart.

Soil conservation (Leviticus 23:22). Not only was the land to lay fallow every seventh year, but God also instructed farmers to leave the gleanings when reaping their fields, and not to reap the corners (sides) of their fields. This served several purposes: 1) Vital soil minerals would be maintained. 2) The hedge row would limit wind erosion. 3) The poor could eat the gleanings. Today, approximately four billion metric tons of soil are lost from U.S. crop lands each year. Much of this soil depletion could be avoided if God’s commands were followed.

Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Did you see the post Blank had where the guy just flat out says we are violating your 4th amendments rights...now sit down and shut up....I might be paraphrasing a bit.

Is blankfist part of the national media?

As for the rest, this is the other half of why I'm annoyed about the way the right operates, even when on the surface they agree with us. They're not satisfied to join onto a campaign that says "we want the TSA to scale back what they do", instead you've always got to make this into an excuse for extracting some sort of pound of government flesh.

Instead of focusing on the actual problem (overbearing security requirements on flights), the libertarian voices demand that we privatize the TSA (read: hire for-profit companies to conduct the gropings and porno scans at the TSA's behest) as if that's a solution to the issue. Republicans want that too, but they also want the gropings and porno scanners to say, they just want to make sure white people don't have to suffer them use racial profiling to determine who gets singled out for these invasive measures.

The more consistent (but even less reasonable) libertarians say they'll only sign on if what we aim for is abolishing the TSA entirely, and while we're at it the DHS too.

Throughout, all the various right-wing groups try to pretend like somehow this was originally a Democratic idea, and that the liberal grassroots were and are all for it.

The sad thing is, most if not all liberals are on the "small government" side of this argument. They want less onerous restrictions on airline security, period. I think plenty of them would be fine with turning over the actual hiring of security guards and purchase of scanners to the airlines, and leave the TSA as more of a regulatory agency than an actual paramilitary organization. Most see this whole process as an erosion of their civil rights.

Thing is, does the right want to tap into that and actually build a coalition that could do something about it? Or are they going to insist that this is all about conservative heroes fighting to defeat liberal villains, and thus guarantee that nothing changes?

So today he's all concerned for the poor travellers getting delayed by people fed up with with the erosion of rights, but tomorrow he'll say "See, almost no one protested - the people are for forced federal fondling feelups!". Be sure to take your viagra 30 minutes before being screened!

That ain't oil. Looks like clay, or even charcoal. Clay is often used to control erosion on beaches susceptible to it. I suppose nobody saw this massive cover-up operation or got pictures of it either. Did the perpetrators also spread driftwood and other detritus over the top to make it look "natural"? Looks like they even hit some choice spots with a fire hose to make it look like natural erosion, eh?

"Different pattern in the sand"? Wasn't there just a huge storm (Alex) passing through this week? Those booms look like erosion control to me. Storms can take and deposit large amounts of sand to a beach. Not everything is a frickin' conspiracy. What is happening in the gulf is a tragedy, and deserves all the outrage one can muster, but this type of brain-dead "journalism" is only leading the blind to battles that don't exist. It's a guy on a beach with a camera. Are you going to believe it's oil just because this shitwit says it is? Pick some up, camera guy. Rub it between your fingers on camera so we can all get a good look. Does it smell like oil? Does it smell like anything? Does it burn? If so, what color is the smoke? What color and kind of residue does it leave? Did you even collect some so it could be tested/verified by an expert? Unfortunately, Billy "Scoops" Batson here has already decided that it's oil, and so should you.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

People have talked about the layer of supposed oil you see there. There are commentators on live leak that say the layer of hardpack is actually clay.

Can anyone verify that it is actually hard packed oil? Looks more like clay to me. The erosion caused the layer of sediment to be shown?

But perhaps not, given that the layer of beach he is walking on looks like normal wet sand.

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/beach.htm

Do I know? Not without actually going there and sweeping that top layer of sand off of the "tar" ball and having a long, look. Then I would have to consult a Geologist.

@dystopianfuturetoday, I want him to answer your question too.

@blankfist, maybe rephrasing the question would help. DFT and I think that coercion by economic extortion is only slightly different from coercion done with threats of violence. We also think there's a huge difference between the implicit threat of "violence" leveled on those who would break the laws that are passed through a lawfully elected government in which they have representation, and the kind of system you describe, where the only legitimate use of force is to enforce the whims of unelected private citizens when it comes to their property.

In our eyes, the problem with monarchy was that you had an unelected sovereign who makes law by capricious dictate, who can use violence to back it up. The problem with the libertarian ideal of a state that only enforces property rights is that it's effectively the same as monarchy -- you make property owners an unelected sovereign who makes law by capricious dictate, and can use violence to back it up.

Now sure, you will say "but in a free market, no one has to do anything they don't choose to", but that's exactly the same logic as my "all taxes and laws are voluntary, because you can always choose to leave the country and rescind your citizenship" argument. There's no guarantee you'll be given your non-property-related rights that we in modern society generally believe to be universal.

Essentially, the question is "how would your system prevent the erosion of equal rights, when the right to property reigns supreme?"

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
^Joe, your reply missed the point. The system looks after itself. Of course the courts are going to rule with local law enforcement authorities, that has a long tradition. The courts also approved separate but equal facilities, then reversed their decision years later. Their decisions aren't always entirely based in legal precedent, but in the predominate social norms of the time. I was talking about the plain and simple fact that the intractable difference in the phrasing of the constitution and the foundation of these types of laws. Of course these laws exist, I already said that. What concerns me is the erosion of our base of freedom.
A man with a sign does nothing to impede movement on the sidewalks away way. This is a technicality, but a valid one. An ordinance that doesn't take that into consideration first thing sounds like a thing made to stop protests first, and keep the sidewalks clear second.



No, you are missing the point and in this rare circumstance, I agree with someone 100%. I know the example I am about to give will be extreme, however, even if extreme, by your reasoning, congress could make NO LAW every prohibiting it...

A man rapes a random woman/passerby because he wants to protest women's rights. Per the NO LAW, ever, clause you mention, this would be a lawful act. Even the laws on the books about rape could not prohibit this man from his wrong doing because, since he is protesting and using free speach, he is immune from prosecution.

Like I said, that example is extreme. However, the law, strictly read, is extreme as well. So there SHOULD be SOME leeway in there. You need a permit? The state cannot discriminate so apply for one and it will be granted. This does not, in anyway, stop a protest by a concerned, non-lazy citizen...

Also, who are these tards to ask for ID, say it is required, and not give their own info? Is it required? Because I don't think it is required of rent-a-cops or other private sectors... I know Florida's courtroom security is run by a private corporation...

^Joe, your reply missed the point. The system looks after itself. Of course the courts are going to rule with local law enforcement authorities, that has a long tradition. The courts also approved separate but equal facilities, then reversed their decision years later. Their decisions aren't always entirely based in legal precedent, but in the predominate social norms of the time. I was talking about the plain and simple fact that the intractable difference in the phrasing of the constitution and the foundation of these types of laws. Of course these laws exist, I already said that. What concerns me is the erosion of our base of freedom.

A man with a sign does nothing to impede movement on the sidewalks away way. This is a technicality, but a valid one. An ordinance that doesn't take that into consideration first thing sounds like a thing made to stop protests first, and keep the sidewalks clear second.

And then they add salt to it.

At least it hasn't been spiked with foul tasting compounds of Cl and F that are intended to kill bacteria and to get you to ingest things that are really only useful topically to slow the erosion of teeth and have no additional benefit (but likely unwanted side effects) when taken systemically. Just search Google scholar for fluoride neurotoxicity in rats or check the CDC's recommendations on upper limits for fluoride levels in drinking water and consider how impossible it is to control the dose when people are drinking different amounts of water.

Fluoride is rapidly eliminated from the bloodstream via the kidneys and uptake by calcified tissues. However, people who lack proper kidney function are vulnerable to being poisoned by fluoridated water. The mechanism of action as a poison is essentially interfering with all kinds of enzymes. It has very broad dose-dependent systemic effects. The upper limit for safety is only 2x the "optimal level" used for preventing cavities, which is an absurdly small margin of error given the uncontrolled quantities of tap water people consume.

It's also immoral to force a specific medical treatment on everyone without their consent UNLESS abstention from the treatment endangers people other than themselves (i.e., vaccines).

Note that this debate circle mostly around rights in the public services.

Some events that been push through this debate's strainer since some years now, to name a few:
A young Sikh men brought is Kirpan(tradional knife) to the elementary school. Should he be allowed to do so ?
In name of religion, a Muslim man refused to pass his driver's license test with a woman instructor.
Orthodox Jews required that windows giving view to women exercising be shaded in a community gym
Some muslims community are asking to be legally freed from work or study for the Friday noon prayer and be accommodate to do so.
In Ontario some people are legaly charge upon the Charia, should the Quebec allow such thing

Actual "Liberal" government (traditionally on the right) (generally get the early generation immigrant electorate) push the so called "reasonable accommodation" policy in public services kind of by opposition to the France "secular" policy in the public services. Reasonable accomodation advocate the right of expression in public services of religious symbol for main religion. The nationalist party (traditionally on the left)is pandering to the right wing of its party (the openly progressive and pro-union wing have been expelled from the party last week) and it's feeding what i'd called a negative nationalism which go along intolerance and racism on this issue.

This debate is now raging for more than a year here, although I didn't get into it, for the terms of the debate are completely distorted by partisan politics, and intermingled with emotional response arising from the erosion, or the fear of it, of "traditional culture". Consequences of a geopolitical-cultural encirclement and the ever-growing cultural and economic globalization.

So I didn't thought thoroughly about it. As for now, the questions i'm asking myself, is to where you draw the line ? What if my belief says that I should go naked to school ? Which beliefs will have rights and which won't ?

Hope that your distance will enable my fellow sifters to see clearer in this debate and help me by ricochet.

Red

>> ^dag:
Do you honestly think the iPad is going to kill Linux distros and an open Internet? I assume that's the kind of thing you are worried about.
I think you should point your worry stick at opponents of Net Neutrality- and vendors who want to "embrace and extend" open standards on the Internet.
It's not like we don't have "closed" applications systems already. Played an Xbox, Playstation or Wii lately?

I don't claim to know the future. I see risks. The trend to me seems to be towards more user-friendly computing, or rather, more transparent computing, where you don't have to actually think about using a complex device that much. That seems to be bringing with it increased manufacturer control over the way the devices can be used. If people get used to that - and they already have - then it seems to me there is a real risk of a more sinister erosion of rights: legislation governing what software can be installed on a device, combined with the ability to actually enforce such restrictions. Mandatory spyware. The China model, if you will. * Maybe none of that will come to pass, but the ease with which people get used to giving third parties control over their devices tells me the risk is there.

So my worry stick is forked many ways. Why pick one party to blame when you can point every which way? If you go far enough down the controlled-device road, eventually you'll be able to simply ban "free" devices for consumer use and few people will care. Many will welcome such a move. Net neutrality opponents are another facet of the slow erosion of the public's giving-a-fuck-about-net-freedom. The consoles you mention are one - and no, I haven't played on one lately - but they are, in my mind, less vile in their current form as they're more restricted devices to begin with - you don't do much else than play games with them. Still, I'm not a fan of those, either.

*(Ask yourself, out in the world, who's the model to follow now? Western countries, divided and economically ailing, or authoritarian China, with a booming economy and a rather stricter attitude towards its citizens? For a lot of the world, China's seems to be the more attractive way.)

I guess the ruling is a matter of degrees compared to what we already have...but it is a matter of degrees in the wrong direction, and as time goes on, this will just lead to more erosions of populist programs and more control to the global corps.

Worst case scenario, as I see it: war with Iran by 2012, maybe sooner.

The cons want that like a 13-year-old by wants a Playboy centerfold, and they've been wanting it for a long time.

Looks like Orwell's right again.

Oh no you don't. This is nature in action! A rare event when considered from the scale of human time. And for a camera crew to be on hand as it occurs? This is something everyone should see!

*beg

Also, because erosion is the evolution of the planet, and because the footage captures what could have (but thankfully not) resulted in dozens of deaths, *eia.